PURAN SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [1975] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 299 · Decided: 25-04-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.;. ___ _ 
299 
PURAN SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
April 25, 1975. 
[N. L. UNTWALIA AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.] 
Penal Code-S. 99 to 102-Private defence when can be' exercised-" Settled 
possession" 1neaning of. 
A 
All the appellants \\'ere convicted by the Sessions Jndge· under s. 302 
read with s. 149 l.P.C. and s. 326 read with 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to life 
C 
in1prisonment. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence. 
In a dispute over land 'between the party of the appellants and the con1· 
plainant, the appellants alleged that they had redeemed the mortgage . in res-
pect of the ]and and thereafter the mortgagee had himself delivered possession 
of the land and that they had grown \Vheat crop in it. The complainant, to 
whom the mortgagee sold· bis mortgage rights, tried to take its possession 
·D 
forcibly. It was alleged that on the day of the occurrence the complainant and 
his party, arn1ed with deadly \veapons, entered the disputed land and tried 
to destroy the \Vheat crop. In the scuffle that ensued. two pe;rsons of the 
complainant's party died and ~ome persons on both sides were injured. On 
the question of possession of the 1and the High Court gave a finding in favour 
of the appellants but on its own interpretation of the decision of thiS Court in 
M1tnshi Rani and Others v. Delhi Adn1inistration held that the appellants 
vtho \Vere not in settled possession of the land, \Vere 
rank trespassers and 
E 
secondly that, instead of indulging in a free fight with the 
opposit~ party, 
the appellants could have taken recourse to the public authorities. Since the 
appeJJants had eXceeded the limitations provided iri s. 99 to 102 I.P.C. they 
could not claim any right of private defence. 
Allowing the appeal, 
F 
HELD : ( 1) It is· difficult to lay down any hard and fast nlle as to when 
the po'SSeissjon of a trespasser can mattffe into settled possession. But \Vhat 
'this Court really meant was that the ,.-possession of a trespasser must be 
effective, undisturbed and to the kno\vledge of the owner or without any 
attempt at concealment. There is no special charm or magic in the \VOrds 
"settled possession" nor is it a ritualistic formula which can be confined in 
a strait jacket but it has been used to mean such clear and effective posSes~ 
sion of a person, even if he is a trespasser, \Vho gets the right under the 
criminal la\V .to defend his property ngainst _nttack even by the true o\vner. 
G 
The nature of possession in such cases which may entitle a. trespasser to 
exercise the right of private defencB of property and person should contajn 
the· following attributes : (I) that the trespasser 
must be in actual physical 
possession of the property over a sufficiently long period; (ii) that the pos-
session must be within the knowledge either express or implied~ of the owner 
or- without any attempt at concealment and Vihich contains an elcn1ent of 
anifnus possendie. 
The nature of possession of the trespasser \Vould ho\vever 
be a matter to be decided on facts and circum5tances of each case (iii) the 
H 
process of dispossession of the tn1e owner by the trespasser must be com-
plete and final and mnst be acquiesced in by the tn1c owner; (iv) that one 
of the usual tests to determine the quality of settled possession, in the ca1e 
of culturable Jand, would be whether or not the trespasser, after having taken 
possession, had grown any crop. If the crop had been grown by the trespasser, 
then even the true o\vner bas no right to destroy the crop gro\vn by the 
trespasser and take forcible possession. In such a case the trespasser will have 
300 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1975] SUPP. s.c.R. 
A 
a right of private defen.::e and the tn1e owner will 
have no right of private 
defence. [307E-H, 308A-D] 
It is manifest that th1~ finding of the High Court on the facts of the present 
case that the appellants were not in settled possession of the land is legally 
erroneous and_ cannot be allowed to stand. The ratio of the judgment of 
this Court in Munshi Rain's case has not been correctly applied by the High 
B 
Court. [310-C-D] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
M1111slii Rani and 01'/iers v. Delhi Adn1inistrario11, [1968] 2 S.C.R. 455 ex-
plained and followed. 
Honun and others v. Rex, A.LR. 1949 All. 564, .'i67 Sangappa and others 
v. State, I.L.H .. [1955] Hyd. 406, /11 re : Mookti l\'adar, and others AJ.H .. 
[1943j !\Iad. 590, Hazara Singh and others v. The State, A.LR. 1959 Punjab 
570. Bhartu v. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.